Weekends are a good time to put a focus on important matters. . .
The reason we visit lawyers is to avoid the scenario “he who has himself for a lawyer, has a fool for a client”.
We visit lawyers to get help drafting up agreements that become useful when there are disagreements regarding such agreements.
The lawyer of one of the parties drafts up an agreement and charges his/her client. The lawyer of the other party reads the agreement, as drafted by the other side, to his/her client, and charges.
The problem is neither party is able to interpret the agreement they end up signing. So, if one of the parties to the agreement feels the agreement is not being respected by the other party, the party goes to his/her lawyer for an interpretation of the agreement. The lawyer charges that party.
The lawyer now sends a letter to the other party’s lawyer. The sending lawyer charges his/her client for sending the letter. The receiving party’s lawyer charges his/her client for receiving the letter.
The sending lawyer explains the content of the sent letter to his/her client, and charges. The receiving lawyer explains the content of the received letter to his/her party, and charges.
The receiving lawyer’s client, having received an interpretation of the sending lawyer’s sent letter, now either agrees to the demands set forth in the letter or indicates that he/she disagrees with the disagreement over the agreement.
The receiving lawyer now becomes the sending lawyer and the sending lawyer becomes the receiving lawyer.
Both lawyers charge their respective clients for sending, receiving, reading and interpreting.
Here endeth one full cycle of legal services. Exit the two lawyers to their respective banks leaving the two clients to govern themselves accordingly.
All of this explains clearly why it is necessary to have a party of the first part and then, another party called the party of the second part.
At a practical level it is a matter of little consequence which party is the party of the first party and which party is the party of the second party – going forward, both clients are soon parted from most of their money.
If these two parties enter into another agreement, the party of the first part in the first agreement can be the party of the first part in the second agreement or the party of the first part in the first agreement can be the party of the second part in the second agreement, leaving the party of the second part in the first agreement to be the party of the first part in the second agreement.
So long as the parties agree which party is to be the party of the first part and which party is to be the party of the second part in each new agreement, things are able to move forward. If they cannot agree, it does not follow that the two parties sign a disagreement agreement and scan the horizon for possible agreement regarding clauses in the disagreement agreement.
The roles of the lawyers remain the same from one agreement to the next – both help both parties to part with their money.
You can readily see that in the absence of such terminology, things could get confusing when the parties find themselves in disagreement over agreements.
Actually, “party” in the above context is an oxymoron. It’s not a “party” at all, nor would it seem appropriate to call any of the proceedings (no pun intended) a “picnic”.
One might be tempted to say both parties end up in a “pickle”.